DUNKIRK (2017) - A little too artful for most

Dunkirk is a war film set in 1940 written, directed, and produced by Christopher Nolan. The film has an ensemble cast and stars Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Mark Rylance, Barry Keoghan, Sir Kenneth Branagh, and Tom Hardy, and follows these characters throughout the battle/evacuation of Dunkirk.

I'll say it right now that this is a very well done movie. Critics rave that it's the best war film of all time and easily Nolan's best work to date, and maybe they're not wrong. It's just too bad that it's so boring.

It's definitely incredibly accurate at depicting what it's like to be in the middle of a real war. What I mean by that is many war movies focus more on making a good story. You get scenes where the characters get a break from the fighting and start talking to one another, revealing each other's pasts and who they have back home waiting for them. It's through these conversations that we as the audience see who these characters really are underneath and start to emotionally connect with them.

We don't get that with Dunkirk because Nolan understands that in a real battle, you're too occupied with just trying to survive that you don't get a chance to talk to other people. When there are bombs exploding and guns firing everywhere and you're surrounded either by shell-shocked soldiers or people too occupied with either getting away or helping other soldiers, you aren't going to plop yourself down to the nearest guy and say, "So I got a honey back home waitin' fer me, how 'bout you?"

In that regard, Dunkirk is very excellently made, even to the point that an actual Dunkirk veteran cried while leaving the theater, saying that "it didn't have a lot of dialogue; it didn't need any of the dialogue because it told the story visually and it was so real." But while critics and those who appreciate truly artful films will undoubtedly love it, at the same time I find it very hard to recommend this film to the casual moviegoer because of just how inaccessible it is. The movie has a nonlinear story told through three different perspectives, resulting in a very difficult and confusing watch your first time through, and without a good amount of dialogue, the characters are very difficult to relate or connect to. 

The Story

Dunkirk is essentially three different stories taking place on land, sea, and sky combined in one, and the movie constantly switches between the three before converging them in the finale. Even more confusing (and this might constitute as a slight spoiler if you're sensitive about getting the "full movie experience"), the three perspectives also have different time-spans.

The overarching story is the evacuation of Dunkirk, in which thousands of Allied soldiers stuck in Dunkirk, France, awaiting evacuation in order to escape the invading Nazi army. The first story is "The Mole", and follows soldiers Tommy, Gibson, and Alex as they try to survive evacuation, taking place over the course of a week. The second story is "The Sea", and follows Peter, his father Mr. Dawson, and his friend George as they commandeer Mr. Dawson's ship in an attempt to come and assist in the evacuation, taking place over the course of a day. The final story is "The Air", and follows Farrier, Collins, and their squadron leader as they provide air support for the Dunkirk troops and taking down attacking Germans, taking place over the course of an hour.

And that's about it. The movie's story really isn't supposed to have a plot, but is intended to be about the shared experience of war and all its players. Nolan doesn't give us a story to enjoy, but an experience to live through. Because of this, we don't get a good story or characters that we can connect to--I barely remember any of the characters two days later--and unfortunately, that's just not what most people will enjoy.

I swear this man is destined to always act with something covering his face.

The Characters, Cinematography, and Music

As mentioned, there is a huge ensemble cast with none of them leaving any lasting impression on you once you've left the theater. It was greatly disappointing to me that I wasn't able to emotionally connect with any of the characters with the sole exception of kind of liking the George character. Other than that, we really don't get to know anybody, which is a let-down because Nolan's work is almost defined by amazing characterization. 

Cinematography and music is, of course, beautiful. Nolan is excellent behind the camera and he delivers some incredibly engaging camerawork when needed as well as truly breathtaking shots when suitable. Hans Zimmer's score in this film was much subtler than his other works and often sounds more like sound design than an actual score--like the fact that almost the entire film has the ticking of a stopwatch playing in the background. He does have some very emotional songs in the movie too, but because I was personally confused on what was going on (again, due to the narrative), I wasn't really able to connect with the emotional moments.

Final Verdict

Dunkirk is undoubtedly a cinematic work of art, but nonetheless it's still a miss for me. While it doesn't have certain problems on a filmmaking perspective like The Dark Knight Rises or Interstellar, the movie lacks a coherent story and interesting characters. Of course, this is all done intentionally and with a purpose, and many will argue that it works out for the best. All in all, while I must give it a high grade for being a very well made film, I have to say it's a difficult movie to recommend. If you're into film as an art form, you'll probably love it. If you're just here to have a good time, spend your money elsewhere. Me personally? I was just kind of waiting it to be over with.

Score: A-